AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV042014_01B2203: Appeal dismissed after final-merits determination. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV042014_01B2203: Appeal dismissed after final-merits determination. AAO credited lesser awards, judging, display of films and leading/critical role, but concluded totality did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. (pp. 3–9).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV042014_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 4, 2014 |
Classification / field stated in source | Arts/film; filmmaker / director |
Procedural posture | AAO non-precedent appeal decision applying two-step Kazarian analysis. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed after final-merits determination. |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination reached and adverse: the totality did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field status; limited recent awards/media and gaps in current recognition weighed against eligibility. (pp. 8–9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO credited lesser awards, judging, display of films and leading/critical role, but concluded totality did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. (pp. 3–9)
Criterion-by-criterion status in this source
These labels reproduce the source-review record. “Not considered,” “not reached,” and “not coded” do not mean the criterion failed. A Director finding recited as background is not an AAO holding unless the decision says so.
Criterion | Source-review status |
|---|---|
Awards | met |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
Preserve that four criteria were met but the petition was still denied at final merits. (pp. 8–9)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: High-value cited page can answer whether satisfying four film-industry criteria guarantees approval; the source says no, because final merits remains separate.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
How to use this record
This is a historical, nonprecedent AAO decision about its own administrative record. It is not a prediction, success rate, or current filing instruction. Compare the issue and procedural stage before drawing an analogy. The current framework is in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2.
Related corpus research
Full-corpus research index
Awards research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Leading or critical role research
Performance sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.